About your Search

20121201
20121231
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)
with san francisco bike coalition, boma san francisco building as the association, union square ccd and real estate department and we received comments from many of the stakeholders. staff also researched on best practices in comparable cities. we looked at portland, vancouver, new york, and also national doubt data from the association of pedestrian and bicycles. based on research, we have made some changes. i will first briefly discuss the impetus behind this legislation and next summarize the existing bicycle parking requirements in the planning code and discuss the ordinance in detail. i want to acknowledge sfmta, who is here, if you have any questions. bicycle ridership has significantly increased in san francisco over the past few years. sfmta's annual count shows ridership has more than doubled since 2006. this report also estimated over 75,000 daily bike commutes in san francisco. with all of that ridership, the city has only 3,000 bike racks on the sidewalks. it requires better infrastructure, including bicycle parking. the san francisco bike plan was adopted in 2009, a col
>> san francisco is home to some of the most innovative companies of the 21st century. this pioneering and forward looking spirit is alive in san francisco government as well. meetings and i made a point to make sure that all of the neighbors have my cell phone numbers if any concerns arise and so i appreciate your time and hope you will support this project. thank you. >>> good even commissioners i'm sam roberts i remember the senior associate i'm standing in for john dryfus, he was looking forward to come back because he grew you mean up in san francisco and his parents live in the city and have purchased cars from the hansens for the last 50 years or so and so, he asked me to talk about this and i'm not sure who i tell about switching over to the -- for the presentation -- threw go where we started with the site is meeting the enhancements of the hansen's dealership and the neighborhood and so the way we did that the increased capacity current site it's smaller than the showroom that we currently have and so we took the showroom requirement and is split it and st
is adjourned. >> welcome. we are here doing our building san francisco tour. we're going to have a very interesting tour of elevators in sanford cisco. we have all gotten into an elevator, the doors have closed, and it has carried us to our destination. have you ever wondered how elevators were -- work? we check out the need outside the elevator using current technology and we learn about the latest destination elevated technology all here in san francisco. we will also visit the machinery where all the behind- the-scenes gears control these incredible machines. we are very fortunate today to have an expert with those who is going to walk us are around elevators in san francisco. can you tell us about the history of elevators in san francisco? the measure -- >> sure. the history of elevator technology evolves with the city. first elevators were installed for moving materials in the 1860's. in the 1870's, the first passenger elevator was installed, and that allowed building heights to go up to about seven floors. starting in the 18 eighties, 1890's, the first electric elevators were inst
the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the planning commission december 6, 2012 will begin shortly. >> i would like to welcome everyone to san francisco planning commission regular hearing for december 6, 2012. please aware that the commission doesn't tolerate any disruption or out burst of any kind. please turn off mobile devices. if you would like to speak fill out a card and speak into the microphone and state your name for the record. at this time i will call roll. >> commissioner fong. >> here. >> commissioner wu. >> here. >> commissioner antonini. >> here. >> commissioner borden. >> commissioner sugaya. >> here. >> first is item one case at 1865 post street request for conditional use authorization is being proposed for continuance to february seven, 2013 at the request of the project sponsor requesting a further continuance than shown on the calendar. item two at 601 van ness avenue continual use continuance is requested. further under the regular calendar there is another request for item 15 at 2895 san bruno avenue request for continuance. that's all i have is t
, inc., with san francisco housing development corp., san francisco's lgbt center, et cetera. specifically to try to target outreach to the api lgbt latino and african-american communities, as well as working with homeownership sf, which was a elaborative of all the different homeownership organizations, as well as consumer credit outreach. there are additional barriers to access those units. whenever anyone contact ours offices and said can you contact about bmr us about opportunities, everybody gets an email blast about an opening in the program. we approved the marketing plans of each of the development s where developers post on craigslist and other publications. we have also been attempting to assess what more we can do? clearly the numbers on the rental side, i think, we're rear view mirrorly relatively happy with. on the ownership side we have been working with our homeownership counseling groups to determine what is it that proves to be the stumbling block? one is the timing to actually successfully apply. we have attempted to do, i think, a better job with the outr
before. [ applause ] fp >> and we are sending a strong message that san francisco families are welcome and we want you to stay. >> this park is open. >> this park is open. shortly. >> the clerk: regular hearing for thursday, december 13-rbgs 2012. the commission does not tolerate outburst or disruption of any kind. if you'd like to speak on an agendized item please fill out a speaker form. and when speaking before the commission, please speak directly into the microphone and state your name for the record. i'd also ask that you turn off any mobile devices that may sound off during the proceedings. i'd like to take roll. commission president fong, here. commission vice president wu, here. iana, present, boren, hillis, here, moore, hee, sugaya, here. first on your calendar consideration for items proposed for continuance. item 1, for 1856 pacific avenue, discretionary reviews have been canceled. under your regular calendar, item 12, case 2012.1183t and z amendments to the planning code for fillmore street there's a request from the supervisor's office to continue this item to
in san francisco, actually raised across the street at 415 vincente. i've been looking across at the old miller house and knew the millers well and now welcome our new neighbors in a brand new beautiful house. we'd love to see the old one disappear. for a number of years now, i look sd directly across at the millers and the mas and vincente street, from the front of my house is a very dark street, gets very little light. i look across at the mas and see how they have totally blinded by these huge horrible trees that come out of 422. i know that's not your issue. but now what is being proposed is that they cut off all of the light on their north side, and put them in a canyon. and they have got two little kids that, vincente is not a good street to be playing on. it's a very busy street. and i'm sure that the kids spend a lot of time in the backyard. to put them in a dark cavern i don't think is right. as i said we totally welcome a new house. we welcome our new neighbors. i just don't -- i just ask that you follow through, and take the recommendation of your own planning department, and
. there are two ami tables that we use in san francisco. there is a tri-county, or three county ami table. at one point the board of supervisors directed us to use a san francisco-specific table and given the relative wealth of our adjacent counties to the south and north, san francisco's ami is about 10% lower than the tri-county ami. so san francisco -- 100% ami is equivalent to 90% in san francisco and that is called out here. similarly on the rental side, it coordinates to 55%. >> i understand what you are doing, but i don't really understand why an off-sale unit would be at 70 and not 90? what is the difference between that being on-site and off-site? >> i think my understanding that this policy is a consistent policy that we have had. unfortunately i can't speak to the distinction between those ami levels. how to i believe it's not a new policy. it's consistent with what we have seen previously. >> it's significant for me and any time we approve these projects for sale that was at the tri-county and i understand your adjustment. the other problem is the downward adjustment raises the s
with the territory and we have a very important business that we handle and protects in san francisco get delayed enough from continuances of other issues and if we're not here it's a reason something gets delayed further and our economy to some degree is depended upon us and doesn't move to the board of supervisors until we hear it usually so i am prepared to meet as many thursdays as we have to. i had questions on comments -- i guess commissioner wu. why would we be off on the five? somebody said september 5? >> commissioner antonini that falls right in the middle of rosha shawna. >> the important days -- the day of that and yom kippur and that's the commission's practice in the past. it's not the whole week and it is the high holiday for the jewish community. >> yom kippur is september 14 which is a saturday. i don't believe that's up for discussion to cancel the hearing but rasiah shawna is from the four to the six. >> but it's the first day i believe is important. >> that's what i have always heard. >> [inaudible] >> so i'm going to make a motion and just see what we -- where we go with i
's council of san francisco, a very respected third party referral organization, whose database included 70% of san francisco's child-care facilities and they informed us that their 95 facilities with at least one actual opening for children 2-5 years old within our zip codes and many openings include family child-care centers just like the applicant's preschool. i would urge the commission of what they offer. many providing bilingual services as working capital. we appreciate the applicant's offer to give them their cell phone numbers for blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking, but blocking sidewalks and driveways and double parking is unlawful. such an offer doesn't fully address neighborhood concerns regarding the issuance of a conditional use permit that is permanent for any future owner. for example, in addition, the findings say there are no exterior modifications to the building, but, in fact, the applicants propose to move the front door of an historic 1905 pre-earthquake home. it's worth noting that the proponents who speak in favor are from outside of this neighborh
effect of these project are certain not enough to pay for the train box but it gives san francisco the opportunity of having local fund to be used to be leveraged with other funds to accomplish that and it's an extremely important benefit benefit and so i urge you in the course of actions that you have been taking and to add this to your achievements thank you. >> thank you.. >> good evening commissioners tim col ron on behalf of the housing commissioner and is i'll be brief it was a really enthusiastic reception for this project at our meeting last week. one of our well known members said this is a killer project this is the first exoskeleton that we have reviewed and this particular, one of the thing that we really liked was the bridge to the park and we are building a very large new city park 75 feet in the air it needs very large connections to it to ensure that it's well used and so there is so much to like approximate it and one of the thing though, i'm a little concerned aboutship inclusionary housing how it related on this site but it's not something that need to be so
i currently live at 1824 jackson street. i have lived in san francisco for over 30 years. up until two years ago i lived in presidio heights where i enjoys a nice home with my daughters and a view of the golden gate. when i decided to move to pacific heights in this particular building on jackson, one of the things that was really appealing as it is for all of these neighbors plus others who didn't have time to come because of the short notice was the fact we had views. some great, not all of them, but we had partial views of the water. we paid for those views. all of us paid for those views, okay? the proposed addition, not just the floor, because if you look at the plan, it's not just an additional flash, floor, but the solar panels. you are almost looking at adding two floors, not one. they block the water view and i know right to view not necessarily, but what about right to value? we pay taxes and we pay taxes on property and property is high because you have a view. well, with this thing we will no longer have any views. and the question also is addition to solar panels unde
Search Results 0 to 21 of about 22 (some duplicates have been removed)